↓ Skip to main content

The Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort (SHINE) trial: an adaptive trial design case study

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort (SHINE) trial: an adaptive trial design case study
Published in
Trials, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13063-015-0574-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason T Connor, Kristine R Broglio, Valerie Durkalski, William J Meurer, Karen C Johnston

Abstract

The 'Adaptive Designs Accelerating Promising Trials into Treatments (ADAPT-IT)' project is a collaborative effort supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and United States Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to explore how adaptive clinical trial design might improve the evaluation of drugs and medical devices. ADAPT-IT uses the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders & Stroke-supported Neurological Emergencies Treatment Trials (NETT) network as a 'laboratory' in which to study the development of adaptive clinical trial designs in the confirmatory setting. The Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort (SHINE) trial was selected for funding by the NIH-NINDS at the start of ADAPT-IT and is currently an ongoing phase III trial of tight glucose control in hyperglycemic acute ischemic stroke patients. Within ADAPT-IT, a Bayesian adaptive Goldilocks trial design alternative was developed. The SHINE design includes response adaptive randomization, a sample size re-estimation, and monitoring for early efficacy and futility according to a group sequential design. The Goldilocks design includes more frequent monitoring for predicted success or futility and a longitudinal model of the primary endpoint. Both trial designs were simulated and compared in terms of their mean sample size and power across a range of treatment effects and success rates for the control group. As simulated, the SHINE design tends to have slightly higher power and the Goldilocks design has a lower mean sample size. Both designs were tuned to have approximately 80% power to detect a difference of 25% versus 32% between control and treatment, respectively. In this scenario, mean sample sizes are 1,114 and 979 for the SHINE and Goldilocks designs, respectively. Two designs were brought forward, and both were evaluated, revised, and improved based on the input of all parties involved in the ADAPT-IT process. However, the SHINE investigators were tasked with choosing only a single design to implement and ultimately elected not to implement the Goldilocks design. The Goldilocks design will be retrospectively executed upon completion of SHINE to later compare the designs based on their use of patient resources, time, and conclusions in a real world setting. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01369069 June 2011.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Unknown 59 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 17%
Student > Master 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 33%
Mathematics 7 12%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Computer Science 3 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 20 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 March 2015.
All research outputs
#15,565,847
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Trials
#15
of 45 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,169
of 273,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Trials
#33
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 45 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one scored the same or higher as 30 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,868 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.